acknowledged the hopelessness of his cause by accepting the bishopric of Nola; and Zeno and Acacius took active measures to obtain the general acceptance of the Henoticon. Under these circumstances the condemnation of Acacius, which had been made in the name of the Pope, was repeated in the name of the council of Chalcedon, and the schism was complete[1] (485). Acacius took no heed of the sentence up to his death in 489, which was followed by that of Mongus in 490, and of Zeno in 491. Fravitas (Flavitas, Flavianus), his successor, during a very short patriarchate, entered on negotiations with Felix, which led to no result. The policy of Acacius broke down when he was no longer able to animate it. In the course of a few years all for which he had laboured was undone. The Henoticon failed to restore unity to the East, and in 519 the emperor Justin submitted to pope Hormisdas, and the condemnation of Acacius was recognized by the Constantinopolitan church.
Tillemont has given a detailed history of the whole controversy, up to the death of Fravitas, in his Mémoires, vol. xvi., but with a natural bias towards the Roman side. The original documents, exclusive of the histories of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are for the most part collected in the 58th volume of Migne's Patrologia. See also Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.
Acephali (from ἀ and κεφαλή, those without a head or leader) is a term applied:—(1) To the bishops of the oecumenical council of Ephesus in 431, who refused to follow either St. Cyril or John of Antioch—the leaders of the two parties in the Nestorian controversy. (2) To a radical branch of Monophysites, who rejected not only the oecumenical council of Chalcedon in 451, but also the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, issued in 482 to the Christians of Egypt, to unite the orthodox and the Monophysites. Peter Mongus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, subscribed this compromise [ Acacius (7) ]; for this reason many of his party, especially among the monks, separated from him, and were called Acephali. They were condemned, under Justinian, by a synod of Constantinople, 536, as schismatics, who sinned against the churches, the pope, and the emperor. Cf. Mansi, Conc. tom. viii. p. 891 sqq.; Harduin, Conc. tom. ii, 1203 sqq.; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. vii.; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. pp. 549, 744. (3) To the clerici vagi, i.e. clergymen belonging to no diocese (as in Isid. Hispal. de Offic. Eccl., the so-called Egbert's Excerpts, 160, and repeatedly in Carlovingian Councils: see Du Cange) [D. C. A. art. Vagi Clerici ]. (4) It is said to be used sometimes for αὐτοκέφαλοι. [D. C. A. art. Autocephali.]
Adamantius (1). [ Origen.]
Aerius, Ἀέριος, founder of the heretical sect of the Aerians, c. 355, still living when Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374‒376. He was the early friend and fellow-disciple of Eustathius of Sebaste in Pontus. While they were living an ascetic life together, the bishopric of Sebaste became vacant. Each of the friends was a candidate for the office. The choice fell on Eustathius. This was never forgiven by Aerius. Eustathius endeavoured to soften his friend's disappointment by at once ordaining Aerius presbyter, and setting him over the hospital established at Sebaste (ξενοδοχεῖον, or πτωχοτροφεῖον). But all his attempts were fruitless. Aerius threw up his charge, deserted the hospital, and openly published grave accusations against his bishop. The rupture with Eustathius widened into a rupture with the church. Aerius and his numerous followers openly separated from their fellow-Christians, and professed ἀποταξία, or the renunciation of all worldly goods. They were consequently denied not only admission to the churches, but even access to the towns and villages, and they were compelled to sojourn in the fields, or in caves and ravines, and hold their religious assemblies in the open air exposed to the severity of Armenian winters.
Our knowledge of Aerius is from Epiphanius (Haer. 75). Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 53, merely epitomises Epiphanius. Aerius went so fearlessly to the root of much that the church was beginning to cling to, that we cannot feel much surprise at the vehemence of Epiphanius with regard to his teaching.
Epiphanius asserts that he went beyond Arius in his impieties, specifying four counts. (1) The first with which the name of Aerius has been chiefly identified in modern times is the assertion of the equality of bishops and presbyters, μία τάξις, μία τιμή. ἕν ἀξίωμα. (2) Aerius also ridiculed the observance of Easter as a relic of Jewish superstition. (3) Prayers and offerings for the dead he regarded as pernicious. If they availed for the departed, no one need trouble himself to live holily: he would only have to provide, by bribes or otherwise, a multitude of prayers and offerings for him, and his salvation was secure. (4) All set fasts he condemned. A Christian man should fast when he felt it to be for his soul's good: appointed days of fasting were relics of Jewish bondage. Philaster, whose unconfirmed authority is very small, confounds the Aerians with the Encratites, and asserts that they practised abstinence from food and rejected marriage (Philast. Haer. 72). Consult Schröckh, Christliche Kirch. Gesch. vol. vi. pp. 226‒234; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. iii. pp. 221 seq.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 461‒563 (Clark's trans.); Herzog. Real-encycl. vol. i. 165; Tillemont, Hist. eccl. vol. ix. pp. 87 seq.
Aetius (Ἀέτιος), the founder and head of the strictest sect of Arianism, upon whom, on account of the boldness of his reasonings on the nature of God, was affixed the surname of "the ungodly," ἄθεος (Soz. iii. 15). He was the first to carry out the doctrines of Arius to their legitimate issue, and in opposition both to Homoousians and Homoiousians maintained that the Son was unlike, ἀνόμοιος, the Father, from which his followers took the name of Anomoeans. They were also known as Eunomians, from his amanuensis Eunomius. the principal apologist of the party; and
- ↑ This appears to be the best explanation of the "double excommunication" of Acacius. Cf. Tillemont, Mémoires, xvi. n. 25, pp. 764 f.
